C'/! 



W T 






&M< wU 






cec>< 

CO 



c c 






'<>«:<: 

:<&»? 






- ' 









t %^.s*^*x 






*^£i T« OCd 




<. «^ ^ 


< c ■■«:■■ c 

< C «*2 K 




3 ^ 


i 


a <7 




<74B£h:,v <C 




'■<[ 




^■■■> c wK 




ccr 


■#; 






* <«c 








< <L«CL 




4Qj^D ■ .€i*.j 






<c 


4^B^^S| 








1 ■■ . < 



cr c«CJC < CC 



»ft& 









.fi*JCL« 






'^5 



1 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. I 

$ 

3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 
E^ggggg ggggggg ggggggggg gg* 



ARNOLD PRIZE ESSAY, 
1861. 



ARNOLD PRIZE ESSAY, 1861. 



THE CHKISTIANS IN ROME, 



DURING 



THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES. 



BY 



si. 



GEORGE HERBERT MOBERLY, B.A 

SCHOLAR OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE, OXFORD. 




Victi victorious leges dederunt." Seneca. 



OXFORD, 

• HENRY HAMMANS; 

WHITTAKER AND CO, LONDON. 
1861. 



u 



v 



« N ^ 



THE 

CHRISTIANS IN ROME, 

DURING THE THREE FIRST CENTURIES. 



It has been said, that to leave the authority of 
Scripture for that of tradition, is like leaving the 
summit of a high hill where all is brilliant sun- 
shine, and descending its side in the midst of 
impenetrable mist. In the enquiry which is now 
proposed, the mist gathers closely round our 
steps from the first ; we have almost nothing of 
the bright sunlight of Scripture to guide us ; we 
are plunged into sudden darkness at the abrupt 
end of the history of the Acts : and it unfolds 
itself but gradually and scantily, so as to shew 
but little of the features of the landscape for 
the first three hundred years. The very found- 
ation of the Roman Church is a matter of 
question. 

No certain information is given us 

FIRST • 

in Scripture either of the time when, or 
century. r ' 

ot the persons by whom, that Church 

was founded. St. Paul writes an Epistle to the 

Church at Rome ; he tells them that their faith 



was already spoken of through the whole world a ; 
1 brethren' come to meet him when he is being 
brought prisoner to Rome b : these are the only 
direct references we have to the subject. It 
is implied in these expressions, that a Church 
of unusual strength and vigour had been growing 
up in Rome, previously to the time at which they 
were written : but no direct information is given 
us by Scripture as to its foundation, progress, or 
extent. 

But on one point all, even those who adopt the 
most opposite theories upon this question, seem 
to be agreed : that it was through the Jews that 
Christianity first crept into Rome ; through the 
permission of Jewish rites and customs, that the 
introduction of Christian rites and customs was 
tolerated. That there was a large and flourishing 
colony of Jews at Rome under the early emperors, 
brought there probably by Pompey after his 
eastern war, is beyond a doubt. So large was it, 
that the Transtiberine suburb, a ' monstrous cantle' 
of the city, was assigned them as a Ghetto — the 
Jews' quarter. No consistent policy was uniformly 
pursued with regard to them by the early em- 
perors. Augustus, it seems, favoured them ; for 
Josephus speaks of an embassy of Jews to Rome, 
which was supported by above 8,000 of the 
same nation resident there d : and the same em- 

a Rom. i. 8. b Acts xxviii. 15. 

c Philo, leg. ad Caium, p. 1014. ttjv nepav tov Tiftepecos irordpov, 
jj.eydX.Tjv rrjs t Pd)p.r)s diTOTopr)v % KaT(ixop.evr)v npos *Iovdaia>v. 
d Josephus, Antiq xvii. 11. 



peror issued a rescript to the Asiatic cities for the 
protection of the Jews, and the security of theii 
religious worship 6 ; which therefore, it would 
seem, must have been well protected in his capital. 
But Tiberius drove them from Rome f , and Caligula 
ill-treated and insulted them g . Nevertheless, the 
very fact of such ill-treatment leads us to expect an 
increasingly influential population ; " a nation often 
chastised, yet largely increasing V which are the 
terms in which Dio Cassius speaks of them. The 
same writer speaks of their being perfectly free and 
open in the exercise of their religion in the time 
of Pompey 1 ; and says, that in the time of Claudius 
they were forbidden by an edict to assemble 
together, though this was the only one of their 
peculiar customs which was put down k ; language 
which can hardly mean less than that the custom of 
worshipping openly in synagogues, which had begun 
in the time of Pompey, was still in use in that of 
Claudius. His edict may have been the imme- 
diate cause of what followed — a tumult, " at the 
instigation of Chrestus 1 ," the result of which was 



e Milmaris Early Christianity, vol. ii. p. 25. 
f Sueton, Tib. 36. 
g Euseb. ii. 5, 6. 

h yevos .... KoXova6ev fiev noWatas, av£r/9ev be iiri irketdTov. 
Dio Cass, xxxvii. 17. 
' D. C. xxxvii. 1. 

k tc5 drj irarpico vofxco /3to) xP a> } x * V0VS i^Xevaf fxr} <TVvadpoi.£e(rdai. 

D. CAx. 6. 

1 Judaeos, impulsore Chresto assidue turaultuantes, Roma 
expulit." Suet. Claud. 25. 

B 2 



that the Jews were again banished from Rome. 
This took place probably in A.D. 54 m . 

By this decree, as is well known, Aquila and 
Priscilla were expelled from Rome, and took 
refuge, with many others probably, at Corinth, 
where they fell in with St. Paul", who came 
southward to that city just about the same time. 
At the end of a year and six months, when they 
were left by him at Ephesus as he was sailing to 
Antioch, we find them competent to instruct 
others more perfectly in the way of God . When 
Paul writes his Epistle to the Romans, probably 
four years after his arrival at Corinth, he greets 
Aquila and Priscilla first among the friends of 
whose names his last chapter is full — calls them 
"his helpers in Christ Jesus p " — salutes "the 
church which is in their house q :" thus shewing 
clearly that they had not kept their light to 
themselves. 

This then (A.D. 58.) is the first date at which 
we have documentary evidence that the Gospel 
was taught in Rome ; and it seems likely that it 
was upon the death of Claudius (which happened 
the year before this) that the rigour of the late 
edict was relaxed, and that the Jews crept back 
to their old quarters. But we do not certainly 
know that this was the first date of the intro- 
duction of Christianity into Rome. Many are 
of opinion that Christians had found their way 

m Hemsens " Paulns" p. 405. 

n Acts xviii. 1,2. ° Acts xviii. 26. 

p Rom. xvi. 3. ,J Rom. xvi. 5. 



thither long before, and that Aquila and Priscilla 
were already converted before they met with 
Paul. Bertholdt even supposes that the Gospel 
had reached Rome during the lifetime of Christ : 
others say that the " strangers of Rome/' who 
were present at the great Pentecost 1 , must have 
carried it back to their native country. But this 
is mere unauthenticated conjecture : the only 
passage which may possibly be evidence for a 
prior date is that of Suetonius already quoted, — 
that the Jews raised a tumult at Rome " at the 
instigation of Chrestus 8 "; which may be an allegory 
pointing to a dispute about Christianity which 
caused the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius. 

It is impossible to determine this question with 
certainty. When we examine the eighteenth 
chapter of the Acts, to see if it is probable that 
Aquila and Priscilla should have been already 
Christians upon their arrival at Corinth, the 
Sacred text does not help us materially. All we 
can say is, that it is expressly said to have been 
"because he was of the same craft*,'' that Paul 
joined himself to them, not because they were 
fellow-Christians : and that it is more likely that 
they should have been two of the Jews whom he 
" persuaded V' than that such an important ad- 
ditional motive for his abiding with them should 
have been omitted, had it existed. It is clear 
that, if the Gospel had been taught among the 
Jews at Rome before this date, it could not have 

r Acts ii. 10. s Suet. CI. 25. 

f Acts xviii. 3. u Acts xviii. 4. 



been taught by an Apostle, or even by any dis- 
tinguished convert to Christianity : for Paul, in 
his Epistle, lays claim to not building " on another 
man's foundation V On the other hand, if the 
Roman Church had been proximately founded 
by himself, that fact would not only explain his 
use of this expression, but also would be a good 
reason for his writing to the Romans — the only 
Epistle extant to a Church he had never yet 
seen — and expressing such an ardent desire to 
come among them. 

While therefore it must be allowed to be possible 
that the Church of Rome was founded by Jews 
at an earlier date than 54, the probability seems 
to lie the other way. But on whichever side of 
the question the truth lies, it is clear that it was 
among the Jews, in the Transtiberine quarter of 
the city, that Christianity first made its appearance 
in Rome. The greater number of the Christians 
would naturally be Jews, but not all : for some 
Gentiles appear to have been converts from 
the first. The earliest document which throws 
light on Christian Rome is Paul's Epistle to the 
Romans, written the very year after the death of 
Claudius. This, though it is mainly addressed 
to Jews, (many of its arguments being such as 
Gentiles could hardly have understood,) is said 
at the opening to be addressed to all the saints 
in Rome x , Jews and Gentiles; and among the 
twenty-nine names of persons greeted at the end, 

v Rom. xv. 20. x Rom. i. 7. 



flve y are derived from the Latin, not from the 
Greek, and therefore may fairly be assumed to 
represent Gentile natives. But the proportion of 
the Jews being so great, we can well understand 
how Jewish usages and practices came from the 
first to have a hold over the Roman Church : 
how it required all St. Paul's most forcible lan- 
guage to make the Jews among the believers 
cease from despising their Gentile brethren : and 
how, even after Paul's death, there still should 
have lingered a party in the Church who JudaizeA, 
that is, who strove to bring the Church which the 
Gospel had freed again under the yoke of the 
Jewish law. 

Such was the state of the Church when Paul 
came to Rome, not as a free visitor, but as a 
captive. If we remember how small, as yet, was 
the number of Christians compared with that of 
the Jews, it will not surprise us to find that the 
Jews professed ignorance of him and his religion z , 
and attended in great numbers a meeting to hear 
him " expound the kingdom of God" in his hired 
house, where he was allowed to remain by the 
kindness of Burrus, the praetorian praefect. In the 
two years during which he lived there he begot 
many children in the faith, and those of all ranks ; 
from those of Caesar's household to the poor slave 
Onesimus. But his chief successes were among 
the army : the fact and the cause of his imprison- 
ment, he himself says, were well known in the 

y Junia, Urbanus, Rufus, Julia, Lucius. 
z Acts xxviii. 21, 22. 



8 

praetor ium % a barrack attached to the palace on 
the Palatine ; probably the often-changed soldier, 
whom the harshness of Burrus's successor caused 
to be chained to him, belonged to the praetorian 
guard ; and centurions had always been forward 
in the reception of Christianity. When he is 
liberated at the end of the two years, we lose 
sight of him for a time. 

His converts may have done much to restore 
the balance between the Gentile and Jewish 
portions of the Church. Anyhow, it is probable 
that they were now more equally proportioned 
than before : and, it seems, at bitter strife between 
themselves. It is singular that while the Church 
has scarcely been founded at Rome, when it must 
have wanted all its strength to resist those outside, 
we should find evident traces of two parties in it 
mutually opposed to each other. But the book 
which purports to be by Clement, the third bishop 
of Rome, and which really seems to be the work 
of some Judaizing Christian in Rome, reveals to 
us an extent of strife in the infant Church which 
would hardly have been believed. It is a defence 
of St. Peter against Paul — of Judaic against Anti- 
judaic Christianity ; and though unnamed, it is at 
Paul evidently that the writer directs his censure 
and sarcastic inuendoes all through the work. 

The mention of St. Peter leads to another topic 
of great difficulty : the determining of the measure 
of his relation with the Roman Church. It is 
well known, that successive church-historians grow 

a Phil. i. 13. (with Alford's note.) 



9 

in their certainty about his movements, till Jerome 
in the fourth century assigns twenty-five years for 
his bishopric of Rome. These accounts, if they 
stood alone, would not be of much weight, since 
it is evident that each depends upon and amplifies 
the accounts of his predecessors ; even Eusebius's 
testimony must here be received with more caution 
than usual, as he wrote after Constantine had 
established Christianity as the religion of the 
State, when it would obviously be to the credit of 
Roman ecclesiastical antiquity to have lengthened 
St. Peter's stay at Rome as much as possible. 
It is more difficult to go against the consentient 
testimony of the universal Church, which from all 
quarters talks of the Roman see as " cathedra 
Petri," "successorium Petri," as early as the third 
century. Yet we have every historical probability 
bearing the other way. We find him still at 
Jerusalem till after the Council of Jerusalem b , 
which is never placed before A.D. 48, and by the 
best authorities not till A. D. 53. Thus disappear 
Jerome's twenty-five years. He is not mentioned 
even for a greeting in St. Paul's Epistle [A.D. 58], 
which he surely would have been had he been 
there. After this it is impossible to speak with 
confidence : but we know that at the Council of 
Jerusalem his share in the work was agreed to be 
to go to the circumcision c ; so it seems strange 
that he should have selected Rome, the capital of 
the Gentile world, for his head quarters. His first 
Epistle contains a greeting from " her of Babylon" 

f Acts xv. 7. c Gal. ii. 9, 7. 



10 

to the Church of Asia d : and it seems hardly 
straightforward to suppose, with Eusebius, that he 
was speaking there metaphorically of Rome as the 
great whore of the west : especially as we do read 
of great colonies of Jews in Babylonia. It may 
be thought, that the existence of a party who said 
they were of Peter, proves that he had at least 
visited Rome in person : but this it is not necessary 
to suppose. There were three parties in like 
manner at Corinth when Paul addressed his first 
Epistle to the Corinthians, — Petrine, Pauline, and 
Apolline e , — yet no one supposes from this that 
Peter had been at Corinth. Rather the mutual 
opposition of the Judaizing and Hellenizing 
Christians in Rome goes against the supposition 
of the presence there at one time of both Peter 
and Paul. But all f concur in placing his death at 
Rome, with that of Paul, in the Neronian perse- 
cution ; and here there is no adverse testimony. 
And we shall understand how Peter, captured at 
a distance, should be brought to Rome for con- 
demnation and execution, even though he was 
no Roman citizen as Paul was, when we read that 
this was exactly the case of Ignatius of Smyrna, 
also no Roman citizen g , in the second century. 
May not the tradition of the Church, which 
represents him as having exercised the episcopal 

d 1 Pet. v. 13. e 1 Cor. i. J 2. 

f The testimonies to St. Peters death at Rome are three : 
IrencBus adv. Hser. — Dionysius of Corinth apud Eusebium — 
and Epiphaniw. 

s Blunfs Three First Centuries, p. 69. 



11 

authority in Rome for some years before his 
death, have arisen from the notorious fact that 
the Roman Church originally was Jewish ? Peter 
was the Apostle of the circumcision, known to be 
especially directing his efforts to the conversion 
of Jews, and the head as it were of the Jewish 
portion of the Church ; so that it seems at least 
possible that the name of " Petrine" may have 
originally attached to it from this, and been 
asserted with greater vehemence as the strife 
grew more angry between this and the Gentile 
or Pauline party : till in a few generations it was 
forgotten that Peter had not actually been among 
the Romans, especially as he suffered and left his 
bones among them. 

The suggestion that the story of Peter's residence 
at Rome only points to the existence of a Petrine 
party in the Church, naturally leads to another 
suggestion. Eusebius says, that Peter, " the great 
champion of the Apostles," " like God's noble 
general, wearing God's armour of proof 11 ," came 
to Rome to support the Church against the wiles 
of Simon the Magician, his old foe. The story of 
Justin's confirmatory of this, that he had seen an 
altar to " Simon Sanctus" in Rome, has been 
sufficiently disproved lately by a discovery in the 
same spot of an inscription to the Sabine god 
" Semo Sancus 1 ." Notwithstanding this, Simon 

h Euseb. ii. 14. top mprepov kcu /xeyav reov airoo-Tokasv. old tis 
yevvalos Qeov arparrjyos, rots delois ottXois <fipa£dp.epos. 

1 Robertsons Church Hist. vol. i. p. 41. n. Milmaris Early 
Christianity, vol. ii. p. 98. 



12 



may have been at Rome: but, without judging 
the story of Eusebius to be mythical, the Roman 
tradition will be sufficiently accounted for, if we 
suppose that Orientalism, of which Simon Magus 
was the popular embodiment, had taken root in 
Rome before Christianity. The insidious mixture 
of Orientalism with Christianity, and the struggles 
of the Church to purify herself from the heresies, 
which all arose from the East, or at least from the 
speculative fancies which the East infused into the 
West, will form a distinct branch of the Church's 
history during these three centuries : and will be 
found to exercise an influence upon her position 
at the present day, at least as important as her 
long and fierce struggles with the Paganism of the 
old Roman empire, or with the Judaism which 
fought against her from the first, and perhaps, 
while its opposition lasted, was the bitterest foe 
of all the three. 

For let it be remembered, that besides the Jews 
who had been converted, and who therefore 
formed the staple of the Judaizing Christians, 
there was another body of Jews, the original 
Jews of Rome : who far outnumbered these 
others, who would hold no communication with 
them, but who hated the Church with a hatred 
probably unparalleled in the religious animosities 
of the world. Before it reached Europe, the 
Asiatic Jews had found Christianity growing up 
amongst them, and had strenuously opposed it : 
the charge which sealed the fate of Stephen was 
that he meditated innovations in the Jewish 



13 

customs 1 '; through all the cities of Asia Minor 
the fiercest opponents of the Gospel were Jews, 
who were filled with envy, particularly it is pro- 
bable at seeing many of their own number con- 
verted, and who were always the first to resort to 
violence. But in Asia the chief cause was wanting 
which in Rome embittered the Jews against the 
Christians. As at Corinth, Gallio cared not to 
distinguish between the two sects of an Eastern 
religion, declaring it a matter of words and names 
and of the Jewish law 1 ; so in Rome, the law 
courts looked on Christianity merely as a sect 
of Judaism, and could not discriminate between 
them, because of their contempt for both. The 
peculiar customs of the Christians are ascribed to 
Jews by Arrian m ; Seneca uses language to recount 
the spread of Judaism which can hardly be under- 
stood of anything but Christianity . Thus the 
Jews, who had found themselves and their quarter 
to be the first where Christianity effected a lodg- 
ment in Rome, were forced to become its most 
reluctant protectors. They had nursed a religion 
against their will, which they hated ; they still 

k Acts vi. 13, 14. l Acts xviii. 12—17. 

m Arrian ii. 9. quoted by Lipsius, notes to Suet. Claud. 25. 

orav Tiva iirajK^OTepl^ovTa Xboajxev, elcoOa/jLev Xeyetv, ovk icrTiv 'lovdaios, 
aXX' v7TOKplv€Tai m orav §' avakdfir] to nddos to tov fiefiafifitpov Kai 
yprjlievov, tot€ Kai €Ctt\ rco 6vt\ Kai KaXeWai 'iovSaios. 

n Seneca, lib. * contra superstitiones,' quoted by Augustine, 
de Civ. Dei, vi. 4. De illis sane Judaeis conloquendere, ait 
" Cura interim usque eo sceleratissimaB gentis consuetudo 
convaluit, ut per omnes jam tenas recepta sit : victi victoribus 
leges dedecunt." 



14 



hated, but could not avoid screening it. It must 
have seemed to them a peculiar curse, that the 
Roman tribunals persisted in confounding with 
them their bitterest foes, with whom they must 
constantly have been asserting their diversity. 
But they could not shake themselves free of the 
parasite which had grown upon them, and which 
was soon to tower independently, leaving them 
barren and withering. 

At first, this systematic indifference of the 
authorities proved a safeguard to the Church ; 
for the Jews, though at times ill-treated, were 
hardly less despised than the Christians. But by 
the time of Nero's persecution, we find the position 
of the two religions remarkably altered. The 
Christians are marked men : we hear of no ill- 
treatment of the Jews. Heathen writers so far 
recognise their separate identity as to say, that 
a race of people, addicted to the superstition 
called Christian, were afflicted with unheard of 
tortures. What was it then which brought Chris- 
tianity into such distinct prominence, as to make 
it the mark of a persecution from which the Jews 
were safe ? 

This has been a perplexing question to many 
writers : and some have gone far to seek a theory, 
which should account for Nero's thus suddenly 
singling out with such precision the Christians 
from among the Jews to suffer for their Chris- 
tianity. Milman conjectures that it was the 

Milman s Early Christianity, vol. ii p. 36 Latin Chris- 
tianity, vol. i. p. 26. 



15 

gloomy predictions of the Christians concerning 
the fire of the judgment day which brought them 
into connnexion with the fire of Rome, and so 
formed, according to Tacitus, Nero's excuse for the 
cruelties which he delighted in exercising upon 
them. Such words, no* doubt, may often have 
been on a Christian's lips, and may have served to 
fasten suspicion upon him, when all Rome was 
eagerly and tremblingly inquiring for the incen- 
diary. But there is one fact less uncertain than 
this, which goes far to establish the cause of the 
unerringness of Nero's persecution. The Jews, as 
has been said, hated the Christians bitterly. The 
vindictive assertion of unconquerable difference 
on the part of the Jews must have been at least 
as frequent as the occasions of confusion between 
the two religions on the part of the Roman 
government. The Jews must have looked for- 
ward with revengeful hope to a time, if it ever 
were in store for them, when they should have 
possession of the ear of the authorities, and be 
enabled to crush the rising Christian community. 
Such an opportunity was afforded to them now. 
Poppaea, Nero's mistress, strangely called a pious 
woman by Josephus, espoused the Jewish cause : 
Aliturus, a Jew by birth, was a favourite actor of 
the emperor. It happened that at this time 
Felix, the procurator of Judaea, had sent bound 
from Jerusalem to Rome some Jewish priests, 
upon a trivial charge. Josephus the historian, 
then a young man of twenty-six, a personal friend 
of theirs, came to Rome to plead their cause. 



16 

IIu was introduced by Aliturus to Poppaea; and 
having gained her ear, had gained the emperor's. 
The priests were dismissed, and Josephus was 
loaded with presents by Poppaea. From this 
time, no doubt, the Jews were favoured at court : 
and hence it should nof surprise us to hear of 
the persecution of the Christians. Hence too 
vanishes all surprise at the precision with which 
the Christians were identified : the Jews must 
have marked their principal opponents long since 
for vengeance when the day of retribution came ; 
and it seemed to have come at last. The de- 
lighted vindictiveness which revelled in the 
invention of new and horrible torments, may 
not have been entirely Nero's wanton cruelty p . 

In such a time the heads of the Church — 
Peter and Paul — could not hope to escape : they 
suffered together, on the same day, according to 
the account given in Eusebius' 1 , But meanwhile, 
if the Jews had had the principal share in exciting 
this persecution, it was their last effort of revenge. 
Poppaea died while it lasted (A.D. 65,) : Nero was 
killed three years after : and in the year of con- 
fusion which followed — which saw four successive 
emperors on the throne — the Jews were lost sight 
of; and with them the distinction between Chris- 
tianity and Judaism, clearly seen while Jews were 
its exponents, was lost sight of too. Equal con- 
tempt was felt for both ; and this state of feeling 
lasted until the destruction of Jerusalem, which 
not only gave the final blow to the Jews as rivals 

p Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44. <i Euseb ii. 25. 



17 

to the Christians, by taking away the central point 
round which Judaism had rallied : but also trans- 
ferred the active hatred, which had been the 
portion of the Christians in Nero's reign, to the 
Jews. They were taxed severely and insultingly, 
and ill-treated in every way at Rome. Nay, we 
find that to be a Jew was a subject for perse- 
cution ; for it was on a charge of impiety, coupled 
with Jewish manners, that Flavius Clemens suf- 
fered death at the hands of his cousin Domitian, 
and that Domitilla his wife was banished r . Most 
writers have supposed that such a strange accu- 
sation can mean nothing but that they were 
Christians : but it should be remembered, that 
impiety was exactly what would be objected by a 
Roman to a devout Jewish proselyte, as well as to 
a Christian ; and that it was the Jewish nation, 
not the Christian religion, which had been all 
along the enemies of the Flavian house. Still we 
are assured by Dio Cassius that many others suf- 
fered, some death, some spoliation 8 , on the same 
charges : and this may possibly include some 
Christians as well as Jews. But when we find 
that church-historians reckon this as a second 
general persecution, we look in vain for more 
instances than this doubtful one of loss of life ; 
and are forced to think that they enforce the 
parallel between the ten persecutions and the ten 
plagues of Egypt too strongly. Nothing so general 

r Dio Cassius, lxvii. 14. eyickrjfia dOeorrjTos — es ra ra>v 'lovSaiW 
rj6r) i^OKeXKovres. 

s lb. ol fiev cmeOavov, ol 8e rcov yovv ovct'kov eo~T€pr)6r)<rav. 

C 



18 



or so horrible can have happened as under Nero 
without our having heard something of it, as we 
hear of that, from profane sources ; they them- 
selves allow that it lasted for a very short time* ; 
and according to Tertullian, Domitian himself 
coming to his senses — certainly his successor 
Nerva" — reversed the sentences of banishment, 
and prohibited all further accusations of Jewish 
manners. 

Thus we see that before the end of the first 
century, within fifty years after the probable date 
of the foundation of the Roman Church, one of 
the three great enemies of the Church is power- 
less to hurt her. Nero's persecution was a last 
gigantic effort of the Jews to exterminate Chris- 
tianity : though they employed for this end the 
civil arm, over which they had temporary power, 
just as they were forced to convict our Saviour at 
a Roman tribunal before they could compass his 
death. Immediately after this, by a strange 
reverse, they sink with a change of dynasty from 
counsellors into outcasts ; so that to be under a 
suspicion of Jewish manners is to be open to 
insult and persecution. But under neither dynasty 
was Paganism, as such, fully awakened to grapple 
with Christianity, as such : Nero persecuted the 
Christian religion, to please the Jewish nation ; 

1 Tertull. ap. Euseb. iii. 20. are e^cov r\ avveareais, ra^icrra 
enavaaro, dvaKaXeadpevos ovs i£rj\a.Kei. 

u Dio Cassius, lxviii. 1. Kai 6 Nepovas rods re Kpivofievovs eV 
dcre/3eta d(prJK€, Kai tovs (pevyovras Karrjyaye' rois re drj aWocs our 
do-f/3eias ovt 'lovdaiicov (Siov KaraiTiao-Qai Tipas (rvvex<npW ev - 



19 

Domitian persecuted the Jewish nation, not the 
Christian religion ; though, in the ignorance which 
all Rome then shared with regard to the distinction 
between them, one must often have been mistaken 
for the other. 

The history of the struggles of the 
Church with external Judaism is thus 

CENTURY. . it 

over ; and now, as they diverged more 
and more, the distinction between them grew 
more and more marked, till in A. D. 138, on the 
occasion of BarCochba's rebellion, the Romans, by 
the foundation of a new colony i£lia on the site of 
Jerusalem, and the exclusion of Jews from it 
while Christians were admitted, forcibly shewed 
their appreciation of the real difference between 
them. The time was for ever past when a 
Jew could be mistaken for a Christian ; and 
though their hatred did not relax, they were 
never again powerful enough to annoy the Church 
effectually. 

The same event which finally distinguished the 
two religions, was a crisis which must have shaken 
Judaism within the Church. Would the Jewish 
Christians follow their nation or their religion? 
Would they be excluded from MMa. as Jews, or 
admitted as Christians ? The course taken by 
the Christians of Judaea was the best they could 
adopt : they elected a Gentile bishop, and returned 
to Jerusalem, leaving some few dissentients at 
Pella, now clearly marked as schismatics, under 
the name of Ebionites. But not only in Judaea, 
but in all the world, and especially at Rome as the 

c 2 



20 

head-quarters of the Gentiles, must the same 
event have shaken the credit of Judaic Chris- 
tianity. Nevertheless, so closely had Jewish 
principles inwound themselves with Christianity, 
that they still lingered, and are heard of as dis- 
tracting the Church, for nearly a century more. 
Their loss of influence is well illustrated by the 
history of the controversy on the time of Easter. 

It is a question whether Rome ever held the 
Judaic or Quartodeciman practice on this point — 
that which killed the lamb on the fourteenth day 
of Nisan, and celebrated the Paschal supper three 
days after, without regard to the day of the week. 
This question is involved in that of the foundation 
of the Roman Church, already discussed : — if the 
Church was planted in Rome by Jews anterior 
to A. D. 54, it is probable that they would have 
adhered to the customs of their country on this 
point as well as on others ; but if it was not 
founded till after that date, and by immediate 
disciples of Paul, he probably would have had 
influence enough upon them, even though they 
were Jews, to introduce his own, the Gentile or 
Antijudaic practice ; of always celebrating the Re- 
surrection on the first day of the week, and fasting 
for a week before it. Any how, by the time of 
Bishop Xystus, (A. D. 120.) the Gentile practice 
had obtained at Rome. He and his four suc- 
cessors, we are told by Irenaeus, did not allow the 
Jewish usage within their own Church, yet com- 
municated, by sending the Eucharist to and fro, 
as freely as before with other Churches which did 



21 

allow it x . In A.D. 159, Polycarp visited Rome, 
with the intention, among other things, of per- 
suading Anicetus, the then Bishop, to adopt the 
practice of the Jews, which had been adopted by 
the Asiatic Churches, over which he presided. 
But Anicetus was firm, even against the age and 
saintliness of Polycarp : and though as a mark of 
personal respect he allowed him to celebrate the 
Eucharist in Rome 7 , (a highly esteemed honour,) 
they parted without agreement on this point, 
though with mutual cordiality. But by A.D. 196, 
the Judaic party have lost even more ground in 
Rome. For then Bishop Victor 2 , not content 
with the measures of his predecessors, attempts to 
break off communion with the Churches which held 
still the Jewish practice. And though he was 
forced to desist, from the general outcry of uni- 
versal Christendom, his conduct well illustrates 
how sensibly the Judaic party must have declined 
in importance since the beginning of the century. 
When this matter is dropped, we hear no more of 
Judaizing in the Church of Rome. 

But the Church was now grappling with 
another deadly foe —more deadly because even 

* Euseb. V. 24. ovre avTol eTrjprjo-av, ovre rois p.er avrcov eirerpcrrov 
.... Kal ov8e7TOT€ dia to eidos tovto aTYe^XrjOrjcrdv rives, dXX' avroi pr) 
Trjpovvres ol Tvpb o~ov Tvpeo-fivrepoi rols dno T(ov 7rapoiKia>v rrjpovaiv 
€7rep,7rov €vxapio~Tiav. 

y lb. Kal tovtcov ovt(os ixdvT(ov eicoivdivr]o~av iavrolg' Kai iv rr} 
eKKkrjalq 7rapexa>pr)cr€v 6 'Avlktjtos tt)v ev^aptcrriai/ ra> UoXvKdpnco, Kar 
€vrpo7rr)v SrjXovoTi, 

z lb. Irenseus writes to beg Victor &s pr) diroKonroi okas 

€KKkr)o~tas GeoO. 



22 

more insidious than Judaism. This has already 
been mentioned by the name of Orientalism : a 
general name, signifying no single set of opinions, 
but including all the developments of that 
tendency to speculation which characterized the 
Asiatics. But its ramifications, fanciful and innu- 
merable as they were, all sprang from one great 
primary idea, which was but a revival of the 
dualistic doctrines of Zoroaster and the Magians. 
The characteristic of all Orientalism was a belief 
in two Principles — one the creator of good, one 
of evil. Ahriman and Ormuzd in disguise were 
the two gods who were preached in Rome even 
before the advent of Christianity. For whether 
we treat the story of Simon Magus as a myth 
or not, it is certain that what under such an 
explanation it would import — the infusion into 
Rome of Oriental ideas before the importation 
thither of the Gospel — is true as a fact. But 
Orientalism for some time held aloof from the 
Church ; they proselytized side by side with each 
other without coming into close contact. Simon 
himself, though baptized by Philip a , can in no 
other sense be called a Christian. But in the 
second century Christians caught the infection of 
these heathen fancies, and the dreamy mutterings 
of the East found an echo in the West, At the 
same time Orientalism assumed a still more alarm- 
ing character, from being wrought out with all 
the subtle refinements of the Greek language : 
and becoming Christianized under the name of 

a Acts viii. 13. 



23 

Gnosticism, exercised a more fatal influence on 
the Church even than Judaism, after it had in 
like manner mingled with Christianity. The 
growth and diffusion of Gnostic heresies belongs 
altogether to the second century of the Christian 
era. The two religions' had not commingled 
at all before this period ; and after it, though 
heresies traceable to Eastern sources still pre- 
vailed, they had departed from the primary idea 
which originally characterized Orientalism. 

Phrygia, immemorially remarkable for religious 
frenzy, had given birth to two opposite phases of 
mind — one sternly practical and ascetic, the other 
wildly imaginative, according to the varying dis- 
position of individuals. These two streams from 
the Phrygian mountains inundated the whole of 
the East, and even penetrated westward. Both 
Marcion and Valentinus, having spread their 
heresies through Asia, came naturally to Rome 
as to the head quarters of Christianity in the 
West ; and there was something so singularly 
taking in their fancies to minds which were at 
once refined and unpractical, that they were 
enabled to do much damage to the cause of 
truth in Rome. 

What they had in common may be told in a 
few words. They both attempted to harmonize 
the fundamental truths of the Gospel with the 
Dualism which had been the faith of their 
country. They both tried to reconcile the Bible 
language about the One Supreme God, with what 
was told them of the two Principles by Zoroaster : 



24 



an attempt essentially impossible, and therefore a 
failure. According to Marcion, the creator of 
matter rivalled, according to Valentinus he was 
subordinate to, the creator of mind. 

Marcion (who, though he gave his name to a 
sect, was preceded in his opinions by Cerdon b ) 
held that there had primarily existed two distinct 
Principles , a good and an evil, the evil Principle 
being the opponent but the inferior of the good. 
But this inferiority was practically of so little 
weight, that the Principles were always at war 
with one another. This idea he developed in his 
book called the " Antitheses," where the evil 
and the good — the Old Testament and the New — 
the Jews and the Christians — are paired off in 
mutual opposition. 

But Valentinus his contemporary solved the 
problem another way. The Demiurgus, or creator 
of matter, was no longer the opponent but the 
descendant of the Supreme God, through a wild 
genealogy d . There was no rivalry here, but 
complete subordination. The imperfect because 
material creation of the Demiurgus, was perfected 
by Christ, also the offspring of the Supreme ; the 
New Testament did not destroy but superseded 
the Old ; Judaism was the childhood, Christianity 
the manhood, of the world. So while Marcion 
cut out the whole of the Old Testament to suit 

b Euseb. iv. 10, 11. 

c Rhodon, ap. Euseb. V. 13. erepoi de, Kadcos Kai avros 6 vavrrjs 
Map/dew, dvo dpxas elarjyovvTai. 
d ' Adv. omn. Haer.' c. v. 



25 

his doctrines, Valentinus adopted it entire, assigned 
it the second place in his system, and accommo- 
dated his doctrines to it, though often violently 
allegorizing its plain meaning 6 . 

But while these two leaders taught thus the 
two most easily recognizable extremes of Gnostic 
opinion in Rome, a third, Florinus*, timidly lifted 
up his voice with another solution of the problem 
of the existence of good and evil. There is but 
one God, he said, but he is the active creator, 
not merely the passive permitter, of evil, in the 
same sense in which he is the creator of good. 
His friend Irenaeus — whom we shall see again in 
the character of a mediator — wrote him an urgent 
epistle " on Monarchy — or that God is not the 
creator of evil g ." The result was the opposite of 
what Irenseus intended. Florinus wavered : but 
instead of submitting to the Catholic faith, he 
at length adopted the views of Valentinus h , to 
which (if his alternative lay between the two 
heresiarchs) his own were evidently more akin ; 
for he was not prepared to admit the two hostile 
principles of Marcion. 

e Tertull. ' de praescr. riser.' " Marcion exerte et palam 
machsera |non stylo usus est, quoniam ad materiam suam 
csedem Scripturarum confecit. Valentinus autem pepercit : 
quoniam non ad materiam Scripturas, sed materiam ad 
Scripturas excogitavit, et tarn en plus abstulit et plus adjecit." 

f Euseb. v. 15. 

g Euseb. v. 20. nepl fiovapx^as rj ivep\ tov pf) elvai rbv Qeov 

7TOir)TrjV KClKtoV. 

h Euseb. V. 10. v7ro<rvpop.€vov rfj Kara OvaXcvrlvov 7r\dvij. See 
Massuetus, quoted in Boutlis ' Script. Eccl.' vol. i. p. 35. 



26 

The two extreme Gnostic heresies continued to 
attract disciples after the disappearance of their 
first preachers : and they would probably have 
had more success in their proselytism, had it not 
been that the speculative tone of the East was 
becoming absorbed in the practical genius of the 
Roman world. This practical turn of mind was 
what really gave birth in the last half of the second 
century to Montanism. Waiving theoretical 
questions on the origin of evil, and so not recog- 
nised as a Gnostic, Montanus was yet an Oriental. 
He came from Phrygia : religious frenzy worked 
upon his practical mind, and resulted in asceticism; 
and his sect, which soon reached Rome though 
without its founder, was rigorously self-denying. 
He was an eclectic in his principles : or rather, 
his sect imitated Marcion in severe discipline, and 
improved upon the doctrines of Valentinus as to 
the development of the world, holding Montanism 
to be the manhood and perfection of mankind, of 
which Judaism and Christianity were but imperfect 
stages. As to the moral tone of their mind, the 
Montanists were the Jesuits of the ancients : 
exhibiting the same rigorous sternness, the same 
lofty devotion, the same boldness in proselytism. 
These characteristics captivated many : and they 
had been careful, as they hoped, not to incur 
the charge of heresy by doctrine or discipline 
opposed to that of the Church ; though it is 
difficult to see how they could have reconciled 
this pretence with their acknowledged depreciation 
of the Gospel in comparison with certain pre- 



27 

tended revelations of the Holy Spirit to Montanus. 
But Irenaeus — again a peacemaker, " in nature, as 
well as in name 1 ," according to Eusebius — actually 
came to Rome on an embassy from the Gallic 
Churches to plead their cause k ; and bitter were 
their complaints when the report of one Praxeas 
of their evil deeds in the east induced the Bishop 
of Rome to condemn their heresy and excom- 
municate its leaders 1 . They found a refuge in 
Africa, which, placed morally as well as locally 
midway between the East and the West — between 
the regions of soaring fancies and of hard realities 
— was a more congenial soil for them ; and here 
it was that they made a convert of the greatest 
ecclesiastical writer of the time, Tertullian. 

Thus before the end of the second century, 
Gnosticism in both its forms had died out of sight, 
and Montanism had been formally expelled from 
Rome. But it is hardly possible to over-estimate 
the amount of influence which these heresies had 
upon the Roman Church, while they were flourish- 
ing there. The spirit of speculation must have 
thoroughly infected the whole Church ; and it 
could hardly have been possible for any Christian 
to hold nakedly the truths once delivered to the 

* Euseb. V. 24. (pepSvvpos ris &>v rfj rrpoo-qyopiq avrcp re rto rponco 
clp-qvortoios. 

k Euseb. v. 4. 

1 Tertull. adv. Prax. c. 1. " Nam idem turn episcopum 
Romanum agnoscentem jam prophetias Montani, &c. et ex 
ea agnitem pacem ecclesiis Asise et Phrygian inferentur .... 
coegit et literas pacis revocare jam emissas, et a proposito 
recipiendorum charismatum concessam." 



28 



saints, without some taint of the new mystical 
opinions. 

But meanwhile that which was destined to be 
the most powerful antagonist to Christianity was 
stirring itself reluctantly to the contest. Paganism 
was to be its last and its longest foe, and to play 
the most conspicuous part among the enemies of 
the Church. We cannot sufficiently admire the 
Providence which restrained this most deadly foe 
for so long, and caused it not even yet for awhile 
to be fully awake to the destruction which Chris- 
tianity was to bring upon it. Three circumstances 
are especially to be noted as having contributed 
to defer the contest with Paganism, and so to rear 
the infant Church till it was strong enough to 
meet that contest. 

The first of these has already been pointed out 
in detail, and need here be alluded to only in 
summary. It is the way in which Christianity, 
while in extreme infancy, grew without attracting 
the notice of Paganism, till it had taken such firm 
root in Rome, that the utmost efforts failed to 
eradicate it. We have seen how it grew under 
the shadow of Judaism, which though cordially 
hating it, and even persecuting it when it had the 
power, yet could not avoid unwillingly protecting 
it. Nero's persecution, as has been already sug- 
gested, though commonly attributed to the em- 
peror's wantonness, (never to any deeper cause,) 
may probably have been caused by Jewish hatred, 
as it began and ended with the beginning and 
ending of Jewish influence. And Nero's per- 



29 

secution stands alone, as an isolated fact, in the 
history of the first century : (for the second 
so-called persecution was directed more against 
Jews than against Christians ;) so that Christianity 
had not yet in the first hundred years been 
weighed on its own merits by Paganism. But by 
the second century it began to attract more 
consistent notice : as Judaism grew weaker, and 
as Christians grew more numerous and influential, 
it was inevitable that they should force themselves 
more and more on the notice of the popular 
religion. 

Another circumstance which tended much to 
strengthen the cause of Christianity was that 
now, when the tenets of its professors were just 
beginning to attract notice, the empire had passed 
into the hands of mild and equitable rulers. Had 
Nero or Domitian been revived in Trajan and 
Hadrian, the whole Christian population might 
have been swept from within the boundaries of 
Roman rule. But the moderate character of all 
the four emperors who succeeded Domitian was 
in favour of the growth of Christianity. It was 
not that they were too much occupied to weigh 
the religious state of the empire. Trajan's wars 
and Hadrian's peaceful policy yet left them time 
to consider and legislate exactly for the position 
of the empire in regard to the Church. It was 
their own moderation which made the wide differ- 
ence to Christianity between their rule, and that 
of those who both preceded and followed them ; 
that imperial moderation which culminated in the 



30 



reign of the wise and benevolent Antoninus. 
Aurelius, who succeeded him and closed the 
century, was a differently-constituted man ; equally 
well-intentioned, and even more earnest-minded, 
but philosophic and intolerant : and his reign was 
a bloody period for the Church. 

And a third point which tended to moderate 
the rancour with which Christianity was received 
by the Roman world was, that Paganism had 
changed and still was changing its own character. 
Had Christianity in its infancy had to cope with 
the degrading Polytheism which formed the whole 
religious belief of the earlier Romans, it would 
have had to pass through a terrible ordeal indeed., 
from which there is no saying how far it would 
have come out victorious. The religion of the 
Romans at this time was far from being identical 
with that of their fathers. The deeper thought of 
the later Greeks had shaken the Roman belief in 
the many gods, and all was tending to make them 
centralize, so to speak, their religious faith. The 
Epicureans, though they admitted the existence 
of Gods, represented them as idle, and exalted 
Natural Law into their Supreme Deity : the Stoics 
boldly rejected the exoteric fables about a plurality 
of Gods, and declared that there was but One. 
All the Schools agreed in this — that it was neces- 
sary to suppose that One Power governed the 
universe— call it Nature, or the Unknown God, 
or whatever else they would. This belief had 
worked its way through the upper portion, and 
now was powerfully leavening the mass of Roman 



31 

society. The old superstitions were kept up in 
form, it is true ; but rather from a politic design 
of keeping the people quiet, than because all who 
professed them were satisfied with the popular 
belief. At the end of the century we find an 
emperor himself learning and teaching the Stoical 
doctrines, and no mean expositor of the tenets of 
Zeno. 

Accordingly the dealings which Paganism had 
with Christianity were at first comparatively mild. 
Even at the beginning of the second century trials 
on account of profession of Christianity were rare. 
Pliny, in his celebrated letter to Trajan, (A.D. 104.) 
confesses that he had never been present at such 
a trial m : though he had filled the offices of 
tribunus militum, of quaestor Caesaris, of praetor, 
and of consul ; and had been propraetor of Pontica 
for eight or nine years. Thus, though his ex- 
pression shews that such trials were not unpre- 
cedented, they could not at any rate have been 
common. And we find that when Ignatius is 
being conveyed to Rome as a prisoner, he seeks 
to avert the kindly interference of the Roman 
Christians on his behalf 11 ; which shews a spirit 
of fairness on the part of the government, and 
disposition to accept Christian evidence, such as 
we should not have expected in the second 
century. 

m Plin. lib. x. 97. " Cognitionibus de Christianis interfui 
nunquam." 

n Ign. ad Hom. i. 4. (po(3ovpai yap rr)V vp&v dyanrju, prj avrrj pe 
dBiKr}(Tf] ._ . . 7rapaKa\a) vpas, pr) evvoia anaipos yevrjcrde poi. 



32 

Such was the disposition of the heathen to the 
Christians at first, and as long as their religion 
remained unaggressive. And till it rose to some- 
thing like a level with the old religion, it must 
have remained perfectly unaggressive. Who could 
have been so harmless and innocent in their lives, 
who could have been such good citizens, soldiers 
or servants, as devout Christians ? The heathen 
must have been astonished, because they were 
unaware of their inner principle of consistency, 
at the sight of a body of men growing up among 
them unaccountably, so perfectly unaggressive, 
yet holding to the distinctive points which shewed 
their difference of religion with such tenacity. 
They would try at first by persuasion, by remon- 
strance, by cajolery, to win them to conformity 
with the common practice ; and it would not be 
till all these milder arts had failed, that they would 
be driven to more open and violent measures to 
force them to abjure their faith. 

What first no doubt caused the Christians to be 
noticed was their own rigid (though often timid) 
abstinence from all participation in the religious 
rites of their country. The consciences of the 
first believers, we know, scrupled to partake of 
meat bought in the shambles, knowing that it 
might have been consecrated to an idol's service . 
Their language would be rigidly and markedly 
free from all the defilements of pagan oaths. 
How could they enter the temples of those who 
were to them no gods but devils ? How could 
1 Cor. viii. 



33 

they sanction by their presence the games at 
which human blood was poured forth like water, 
and which never began without idolatrous sacri- 
fices and lying omens ? Their absence from these 
things would attract notice ; and being noticed, 
and questioned, the Christians could not but own 
to a wholly different belief to the popular one. 

Nor was their belief only different. Christianity, 
as it grew more powerful, must have lost its un- 
aggressive character, and claimed to be exclusive 
as the sole ground of its existence at all. If God 
were God, Jupiter was a devil, and all his worship 
devil-worship. No other religion could stand 
beside it : if it gained ascendancy, the rest must 
be crushed. Now the Romans had admitted all 
sorts of foreign religions to an equality with their 
own ; the mysteries of Osiris and Isis, of the Sun, 
and of Dualism, were openly tolerated in Rome ; 
an emperor would gladly have introduced Christ 
to take rank among his country's gods p : but 
when they saw clearly that either the old religion 
or the new must fall, they refused to desert the 
old and abide by the new. 

This claim of Christianity to be exclusive first 
made itself heard in the " Apologies." These 
documents, at first no more than fugitive state- 
ments of grievances, grew very rapidly into im- 
portance, as they were couched in a shape well- 
suited to the wants of a necessarily literary body, 
till they became a regular series of well-sustained 
defences, to which the Church could appeal as 

p Euseb. ii. 2. 
D 



34 

occasion required. There is a far wider transition 
between the matter of the Apologies of Quadratus 
and Aristides q , (A.D. 123.) really no more than a 
complaint of "divers evil men," and the attacks 
upon pagan absurdities in Justin's first Apology, 
written not thirty years after — even than between 
this and Tertullian's masterpiece of written ad- 
vocacy for the Christian faith, which belongs to 
the third century. That the heathen felt the 
weight of these recorded arguments is plain from 
Celsus' attack on Christianity, probably in answer 
to them ; a shallow ignorant work, which plainly 
shews how unsuccessful Paganism was likely to be 
in turning their own weapons against the Christians. 
But meanwhile strength, if not right, was on the 
pagan side : and the controversy too often ended 
in the blood of the Christians, who had thus dared 
to be outspoken. 

But for all this, the martyrdoms of the second 
century were comparatively few. During the 
greater part of it the emperors only yielded to 
the more and more strongly expressed rancour 
of the enemies of the Christians ; and thus their 
decrees are stamped with a negative character 
throughout, prescribing the limits of persecution, 
rather than urging it upon their subordinates. 
Persecution is hardly the name for this very 
reluctant and intermittent warfare. We are able 
to give a very exact account of the instructions 
for the treatment of Christians given by these 

q See Fragments of Quadratus and Aristides, Routh's 
' Reliquiae Sacra3,' (vol. ii. pp. 73, 74.) 



35 



emperors to their officers abroad, (tallying sub- 
stantially, it is to be presumed, with their own 
practice at home) ; and to compare them with 
what we know to have been their actual treatment 
of persons accused of Christianity. 

(i.) Trajan r , in his answer to Pliny's letter of 
enquiry about the treatment of Christians, re- 
commends that they should be let alone, unless 
openly accused of Christianity. If brought to 
trial, let the nature of the evidence determine the 
verdict : the crime is punishable if the evidence is 
good, but if it is unsupported, let it be rejected. 
Let us see how far Trajan practically acted in the 
spirit of this advice. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, 
had long been notoriously preaching the faith in 
his city ; in the course of Trajan's reign he is 
condemned, brought to Rome, and executed. 
But the whole transaction is quite in keeping with 
the terms of Trajan's advice to Pliny. Ignatius 
had not been touched while unaccused ; when the 
emperor was on a visit to Antioch, he was carried 
a prisoner, though a willing prisoner 8 , before him : 
and the evidence must have been too plain and 
undoubted to admit of hesitation as to the verdict, 
if the terms of the rescript were to be followed ; 

r C. Plin. epp. x. 98. " Conquirendi non sunt : si de- 
ferantur, et arguantur, puniendi sunt: sine auctore vero 
propositi libelli nullo crimine locum habere debent." 

s eKova-los rjyero 7rp6s Tpaiavov. (' Marty rium S. Ignatii' from 
Jacobsons ' Patres Apostolici.') [The passive voice of fjyero 
is surely not counteracted by the adverb £kov<tig>s, as ' Clericus' 
suggests in his note.] 

d2 



36 

for all Antioch must have borne witness to his 
doctrine and resounded with his preaching. 

(ii.) Next, Hadrian answers a like question from 
a similarly-situated provincial governor, in a tone 
which implies still greater tenderness to the Chris- 
tians. Reiterating Trajan's instructions, he adds 
the following : " Do not punish for Christianity 
alone, unless convicted besides of illegality ; and 
do not merely reject, but punish false evidence'." 
What he meant by "illegality," his successor 
Antoninus Pius still further defines, saying that 
his predecessor forbade punishment for any thing 
but plain treason against the Roman sovereignty". 
We do not hear from history of a single martyr 
having suffered in Hadrian's reign, which therefore 
has been regarded as a time of unbroken peace to 
the Church. But a record has been lately dis- 
entombed from the bowels of the earth, which 
tells another tale. This is a rudely-carved epitaph, 
found in the Catacombs of Rome ; those under- 
ground vaults which formed the refuge of the 
hunted Christians throughout the early ages, and 
which doubtless became more and more a home 
to them as persecution thickened. Its simple but 
touching language runs as follows 31 : " In the time 

1 Euseb. iv 9, quoting Hadrians rescript to Minucius Fun- 
daClUS. ct ns ovv KaTrjyopet koX deUvvo-i ri Trapa tovs Popovs npar- 
Tovras, ovtg)S opi£e Kara ttjv 8vvap.iv rov dpaprr)paros' a>s pa t6v 
'Hpaickea e'l tls o~vKo(pavTias yapw rovro 7rpoT€ivoi, 8ia\dp(3ave vnep rrjs 
deivoTrjTos, Kal <pp6vri£e onccs av eKducrjo-eias. 

u Euseb. iv. 13. ols Ka\ dvTeypayjre [Trarrjp] pr]8ev ivoxKciv rots 
ToiovTOis, el pq (paivoivro ti nepl rr)V 'Pcopalwv rjyepoviav iyxeipovvres* 

x See Maitland's ' Church in the Catacombs,' p. 127. 



37 

of the emperor Hadrian, the young Marius, a 
military officer, (who had lived long enough, when 
he ended his life in blood for Christ's sake,) at 
length rested in peace. Erected to the well- 
deserving in grief and fear 7 ." But we may observe, 
that the execution of Marius was strictly within 
the letter of Hadrian's rescript. Marius was a 
military officer, and as such would have the 
military oaths tendered to him, which as a wor- 
shipper of Christ he could not take; he would 
therefore render himself liable to the punishment 
for " illegality," or treason against Rome. 

(iii.) Antoninus Pius simply confirms 2 the in- 
structions of his predecessor. His conduct, so far 
as we know, was quite in keeping with the tenor 
of this confirmation ; for we hear of no Christian 
martyrdoms under his quiet and peaceful reign. 

An inscription indeed which has been also found 
in the Roman Catacombs runs in the following 
classical and imaginative language : " Alexander 
is not dead, but lives beyond the stars 

y The original Latin is as follows : " Tempore Adriani 
imperatoris Marius adolescens dux militum qui satis vixit 
dum vitam pro Christo sanguine consunsit in pace tandem 
quievit benemerentes cum lacrimis et metu posuerunt." 
[Maitland thinks the word " benemerentes" doubtful. May it 
not be a mistake for benemerenti ? The last clause would 
then correspond with the notices of the erection of the 
epitaphs at the end of many other inscriptions. On p. 131 
is a similar omission of the nominative to the verb : " bene- 
merenti fecit."] 

z Euseb. iv. 26. tcus noXeai nepi tov prjdev vecoreplfeiv nep\ rjp&u 
cypatyev. 



38 

He ended his life in the reign of Antoninus, who, 
foreseeing that his good deeds would soon outrun 
all hope of payment, returned him evil for good. 
O luckless times ! when, for all our de- 
votions and prayers, not even in caverns is safety 

possible He has scarce lived at all, who 

has lived in Christian times V What can these 
sad times of distress have been ? Can the same 
emperor who had taken all Christians under his 
protection, and who, according to all testimony, 
was the mildest ruler that ever sat on a throne, 
have merited such a bitter reproach for ingratitude 
and cruelty ? Surely what is said of the times 
agrees much better with the character of those of 
the second Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius ; who, 
during the latter part of his reign, was a stern and 

a Maitland, p. 39. The whole of this curious epitaph is 
as follows : " Alexander mortuus non est seel vivit super 
astra et corpus in hoc tumulo quiescit vitam explevit sub 
Antonino imp quiubi multum benejicia antevenire pr&videret 
pro gratia odium reddidit* genua enim flectens vero Deo 
sacrificaturus ad supplicia ducitur o tempora infausta quibus 
inter sacra et vota ne in cavernis quidem salvari possimus 
quid miserius vita sed quid miserius in morte cum ab amicis 
et parentibus sepeliri nequeant tandem in ccelo coruscant 
parum vixit qui vixit iv. x. tern." [in Christianis temporibus. 
M.] 

* [Translated as in the text, because of a striking (and it seems 
hitherto unperceived) coincidence with a passage of Tacitus, Ann. 
iv. 18. " Nam beneficia eo usque lseta sunt, dum videntur exsolvi 
posse; ubi multum antevenere> 'pro gratia odium redditur." This 
cannot surely he an undesigned coincidence; and it is all the more 
striking, as it would he written within fifty years after Tacitus' 
death.] 



39 

relentless persecutor of the Church. It has been 
conjectured 1 , that the alarm of a Marcomannic 
war (A. D. 166.) first made him persecute the 
Christians to appease the wrath of the gods : so 
that this, perhaps, is the most natural time to 
assign for Alexander's death. The next year saw 
the martyrdom of Justin, who in his second Apology 
had predicted his approaching fate : and who was 
sacrificed by the philosophic Aurelius to the 
malignity of one Crescens, a Cynic philosopher. 

Thus we have seen the century, throughout 
which the emperors have only reluctantly con- 
sented to executions of Christians, end suddenly 
in blood with the last years of Aurelius' reign. 
Christians in other countries governed by Rome 
did not escape the persecution in the capital city ; 
but it was in Rome itself that it must have raged 
most fiercely. The tone of despair which pervades 
Alexander's epitaph may be taken to represent 
the general feelings of Christians at this time. 
Life was scarce life worth having, when such was 
the rigour with which Aurelius prosecuted his 
search, that even the Catacombs were ransacked 
for victims. 

This is the first time that we find the Church 
attacked on its own merits by Paganism. Before, 
she had been confounded with Judaism — or, 
when not confounded, another enemy, not Pagan- 

b Milman's * Early Christianity,' vol. ii. p. 182. 
c e. g. Polycarp in Smyrna, and the martyrs of Lyons and 
Vienne. 



40 

ism, had been the principal in the persecution. 
Now first she tasted the bitter cup mixed for her 
by the conscious opposition of heathen. But 
even this, bitter as it was, was as nothing to what 
she was to drain hereafter. The proscription now 
was set on foot by philosophers, and conducted 
throughout in a rigorously calm spirit by the 
philosophic neo-paganism of the day ; but the 
Christians had yet to experience the savage and 
wanton brutality of persecutors of another stamp, 
when it came to the last deadly issue, the last 
struggle for life of the old Polytheism against the 
new worship. 

But for the present a complete lull 

rp TT J T> T-» 

succeeded the storm. We might almost 
say, that during the first half of the 
third century, the vials of wrath ceased their 
outpouring on the Church. This would be lite- 
rally true, were it not for the short but savage 
reign of Maximin, who however treated all re- 
ligions alike d : all the other emperors of the half- 
century being indifferent, because too insecure in 
their own seat to be violently opposed to the new 
religion ; and some even more actively favourable 
to it. Here then was a long breathing-space 
between the first and the last persecutions, which 
the Church ought to have improved to great 

d I omit to notice what is called the persecution of 
Severus ; because the edict only forbad proselytism, not Chris- 
tian worship : and because persecution under it was confined 
to Africa, and certainly did not extend to Rome. Cf. Eobert- 
sons " Church History," vol. i. pp. 65, 66. 



41 

purpose for strengthening her hands and enlarging 
the sphere of her work. 

But this, her halcyon time as regarded external 
relations, she unhappily clouded by internal dis- 
putes. In her infancy she can hardly be said to 
have any internal history ; and though she had 
been growing rapidly for the last century, she 
had been occupied too exclusively with constant 
attacks from her exterior foes, to be much con- 
cerned about her own inner development. But 
during this lull between the storms germs of 
corruption and disunion appear ; questions of faith 
occasion disputes within her camp. And now too 
her hierarchy comes into distinct notice. We 
have hardly heard before of any individual Bishops 
of Rome. They have been humble men, living in 
an unmarked dwelling beyond the Tiber 6 , in the 
quarter which first received Christianity into 
Rome : not one that we know of has been con- 
spicuous enough to be called upon to seal his faith 
with his blood. Now, they suddenly start into 
individual life ; and grow to exercise that arbitrary 
power over doctrines as well as discipline, which 
they are destined to keep for upwards of a thou- 
sand years. 

Our thoughts naturally turn back to the heretics, 
as the most likely to disturb the internal peace of 
the Church during a period of outward quiet. 
But Orientalism had run itself out in Rome ; the 
Christians of the West, thoroughly imbued with 

e See a note on " Callistus' residence in Trastevere," in 
Bunsens " Hippolytus and his Age," vol. iv. p. 127. 



42 

Christian ideas, no longer doubt about the sole 
government of the world. All are " Monarchians" 
in this sense. But they also believed in the 
Father and the Son ; and it seemed strange that 
the lips of Monarchians should utter two Divine 
Names. How could they reconcile the distinct per- 
sonality of the Two, with the Single Godhead which 
their Christianity no less bound them to believe ? 

Bishop Victor, who headed the orthodox Church 
in the last ten years of the second century, had 
met and refuted the two obvious heresies upon 
this point. On the one hand, he had condemned 
Theodotus for saying that Christ was a mere man, 
and that the Father alone was God. But the 
other solution of the problem was more fanciful 
and common : at least three heresiarchs held 
various modifications of the view which has been 
fatally known to the Church in all ages by the 
name of Sabellianism ; which said that the Father 
and Son were not distinct, but operations, energies, 
or representations of One Monad. Of these, two 
had been condemned by the same Bishop Victor : 
Praxeas, who taught himself in Rome ; and 
Noetus, though his Roman disciple, Epigonus*. 

But Victor was succeeded (A.D. 202.) by Zephy- 
rinus, a weak man, unable to steady himself in the 
midst of conflicting opinions, and moreover igno- 
rant and venal g , if we may believe the evidence of 

f Bwxsens •' Hippolytus," vol. i. pp. 114, 119. 

e " Refutatio Hceresium," p. 285. (published by E. Miller, 
under the title of " Origenis Philosophumena" Oxford, 1851,) 
civbpa dypdnfiarov kcu affetpov tcov eK<\r](ria(TTiKS>v bpcav . . . ovra 
b(ap6KrjTVTi)v kcu (piKdpyvpov, eireiOev. 



43 

an adversary. Callistus, a man of low origin and 
disreputable precedents, gained a complete mastery 
over him, and swayed him backwards and for- 
wards, making him use at different times glaringly 
inconsistent language. Sectarian differences ran 
high. The orthodox called the Monarchians 
" Patripassians ;" the Monarchians retorted by 
the name of " Ditheists," and Callistus, the Pope's 
pope, repeated the foul imputation. As long 
as he occupied any but the highest place, it was 
Callistus' interest that there should be at least 
two parties in the Church whom he might play 
off upon one another : but as it would embarrass 
him if there were more than two, he persuaded 
Sabellius, (the third Monarchian, who was just be- 
ginning his career,) to coalesce with the Noetians, 
persuading him of the identity of their views h . 

Zephyrinus dying at this juncture, Callistus 
stepped into his place (A.D. 218). Having no 
further to climb, his policy now was to undo his 
former work, and make the Church one. He 
threw off Sabellius 1 : and, finding himself unable 
to return to the orthodox party after the language 
he had used of them, invented a theory of his 
own k , to escape the odious name of Patripassian. 
The Father, he said, suffered not as the Son, but 

h H. H. p. 285. vnb KaXklorTov (2a/3eXXios) dveaeUro irpbs to 
boyfxa to KXeofievovs panelv, (paanovTos to. opoia (ppoveiv, Cleomenes 
was a disciple of Noetus, Bunsen, i. p. 114. 

5 K. H. p. k 289. anecoo-ev, (qy. excommunicated?) tov 2a/3e'XXioi/. 

k Ibid, aldovfxevos to. d\r)6rj Xeyeiv, 8\a to brjpoo-ia f)fxiv oveibl^ovra 
etVeTv dideoi eo~Te, .... ecpevpev aipeaiv Toidvde. 



44 

with the Son, being inseparable from him. This 
teaching would probably have had more influence 
and done greater harm to the Church, had it not 
been accompanied with gross moral perversion. 
The Pope publicly announced indulgence for sin 
to all Callistians 1 , and openly allowed a system of 
concubinage even among the clergy. But this 
was going too far ; a revulsion took place towards 
orthodoxy ; and the whole dispute was soon after 
drowned in the horrors of Maximin's reign, in 
which a new Bishop, Pontianus, was the first of 
the Roman see who was called on to suffer 
martyrdom for his faith, (A.D. 235.) 

The details on this period are borrowed from 
a lately-discovered work, now generally acknow- 
ledged to be by Hippolytus, the contemporary 
Bishop of Portus, and presbyter of the Roman 
see. His double position gives us an insight into 
the constitution of the hierarchy at that time, and 
shews us the germ of what developed later into 
the College of Cardinals. 

Each of the presbyters at Rome probably had 
charge of one of the churches of the city. A letter 
of 251, written by the then Bishop Cornelius, says 
that there were then forty-six presbyters ; and 
fifty years later we hear of " more than forty" 
churches in Rome. During these fifty years then 
the number had certainly not increased ; — which 
is strange, considering that the date of the first 
Christian churches in Rome is fixed to only 

1 R. H. p. ^90. ov Aoyiferai avra fj d/xapria, (pacrlv, el 7rpo(r8pdfxot 
tji tov KaXAtcrroi; (r^nkfj. 



45 

twenty years before Cornelius* letter (A.D. 230). 
The churches were termed " cardines," whence 
the presbyters who served them were called 
" cardinales ;" they met regularly to debate on 
church matters, under the presidency of their 
bishop. Now a circumstance like that of Hip- 
polytus' being chosen Bishop of Portus when he 
was already a Roman presbyter, may probably 
have led to what we afterwards find an undoubted 
fact : — the introduction of the nine or ten suburb- 
icarian bishops into the council of the cardinals, 
distinguished by the name of cardinal-bishops; 
whereas the others were cardinal-priesis. And 
when we recollect that it was the former class 
who, eight centuries after, were invested with the 
exclusive right of electing the Pope, we shall see 
the full-blown Roman hierarchy in germ in the 
third century. 

It is tempting to argue from the number of the 
organized staff to the number of Christians in 
Rome at this time : but obviously impossible to 
do it with anything like precision. It would also 
be an interesting enquiry, if we had materials for 
conducting it, to trace the gradual increase of the 
Church from her first few conversions till she had 
swelled to her third-century proportions : and to 
find, if possible, indications of the ranks from 
which she made most converts. But here we are 
left almost wholly in the dark. We know that 
St. Paul's labours ranged from the highest to the 
lowest — from those of Caesar's household, to the 
poor runaway slave. We hear of Domitian's 



46 

cousin, and a few others of imperial rank in the 
course of the three centuries, embracing the 
despised religion : — and on the other hand we find, 
that the first Christians were sent for a punish- 
ment as " arenarii" to dig out the sandpits which 
formed a network under Rome ; and they seem 
to have made many converts among that lowest 
class. Thus out of the highest and the lowest 
rank we can gather some scanty records of prose- 
lytism : about the middle class nothing would be 
known, were it not that the earth is daily yielding 
her treasures, and the Catacombs of Rome are 
giving us more and more information about the 
class usually unnoticed by history. And yet it is 
among these that Christianity must have made 
the most way. Revolutions which are destined 
to shake a nation do not commonly spring exclu- 
sively either from the nobles or the rabble : the 
former are in too conspicuous a position for any 
change in them to go long unmarked — the latter 
exercise too little influence upon the mass of 
people. It is the middle rank, receiving from 
both extremities, and holding what it receives 
tenaciously and noiselessly, which alone is capable 
of revolutionizing a state. The yeoman — the 
substantial burgher — the mechanic — the retired 
scholar— such as these must have formed the 
heart and strength of Roman Christianity; though 
of this, from the nature of things, we have no 
record. 

It is of more practical consequence, with regard 
to the modern claims of the Papacy, to determine 



47 

the degree of recognised authority which the 
Roman Church possessed over others in the third 
century. For that Rome had a precedence, and 
exercised at least a moral influence, can hardly 
be doubted by any who remember that she was 
an apostolic Church, the only one in the West ; 
and that she could shew the scenes of the mar- 
tyrdom of at least two of the Apostles of our 
Lord m . Thus as the depositary of apostolical 
doctrine, as their elder sister in the faith, other 
Churches looked up to her, and were willing to 
follow her precedents. But that there were no 
pretensions to authority, at least in the first 
century, is plain from the fact, that Clement of 
Rome (A.D. 91 — 100), hearing of dissensions in the 
Church at Corinth, (itself, be it remembered, 
apostolic, and of at least as early an origin as 
that of Rome,) had sent the Corinthians a letter" 
'" persuading them to peace, and refreshing their 
faith, and that tradition which they had so lately 
received from the Apostles." No authority is 
claimed here — it is the exhortation of an equal, 
not the imperious demand of a superior. 

m Tertull. ' de prescript, hser.' c. 36. " Si Italias adjaces, 
habes Eomam, unde nobis auctoritas praesto est. Ista quam 
felix ecclesia! cui totam doctrinam apostoli cum sanguine suo 
profuderunt : ubi Petrus passioni Dominicae adsequatur : ubi 
Paulus Joannis exitu coronatur : ubi apostolus Joannes post- 
quam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est in insulam 
relegatur." 

n Tertull. quoted Euseh. V. 6. els elprjvrjv o-Vfx(Si(3d£ovaa avrovs, 
Kai avaveovcra ttjv tt'kttlv avrcov, Kai r/v vecoa-ri cmb reov airocrTokoiv 
napadocriv eiKrjcpei, 



48 

In the second century, however, we find how 
easily and naturally precedence breeds love of 
power. The unwarrantable efforts of Bishop Victor 
(A.D. 170 — 202), to enforce upon Asia his own 
practice with reference to the time of Easter, have 
been already noticed . This dispute between Rome 
and Asia had been pacified by Gaul p ; for Irenaeus 
— a third time a ' peacemaker' — had written to 
Victor a strong letter of remonstrance, which led 
to his ultimate cession of the point in dispute. 

But in the third century the utmost claims of 
Victor are repeated and outdone by Bishop Stephen 
(A.D. 256) ; if it is fair to judge from the increased 
amount of opposition with which they met. Here, 
as in the former case, Rome had right on her side : 
but she attempted to enforce that right by tyran- 
nical means, and met with just resistance and 
signal failure. The difference between the Churches 
had grown out of what should only have drawn 
closer the bonds of union — the persecution by 
Decius. After the long peace of the Church, 
which had lasted with scarcely an interruption 
for half a century, it was time that she should 
be recalled to look to the hole of the pit whence 
she was digged. Christians had forgotten that 
they were all one family, all opposed to the 
world's prevalent belief; and the lesson which 
should have taught them this, severe and horrible 
as it was, did but give birth to fresh discords. 

Next to Rome, Carthage was the city most 
exposed to the fury of Decius. The same year 

p. 21. p Euseb. v. 24. 



49 

sent Fabian of Rome to martyrdom and Cyprian 
of Carthage into retirement. What Rome was to 
the Italian, Carthage was to the African Churches ; 
till she had grown to rival, if not to equal, Rome 
in spiritual precedency : and it is curious to see 
the old strife of the Punic wars played over again 
under different colours. Their constant inter- 
course, their community of language, of govern- 
ment, and now of sufferings, could never bind 
Carthage thoroughly to Rome. The same questions 
were always rising in both Churches, but always 
were met with different decisions. It is a Cartha- 
ginian that opposes a Roman Bishop in the third 
century, and the remonstrance comes from an 
Asiatic. 

In 251, with the death of Decius, the perse- 
cution came to an end. But so sudden and so 
severe had it been, that many both in Rome and 
at Carthage had been shaken in their allegiance 
to Christ, and had bought their life by the accept- 
ance of " libelli" or false certificates of having 
sacrificed to the heathen gods. Now arose the 
question as to whether to readmit these libellatics 
into the Church or not ; which both Rome and 
Carthage had decided in the negative, while the 
persecution still continued. But when there was 
no longer any opportunity for them to prove their 
sincerity by dying for the faith they had denied, 
Rome and Carthage found themselves at issue as 
to the amount of penance requisite before re- 
admission ; and the two decisions gave rise to 
schisms in the two Churches. Carthage required 

E 



50 

rigorous penance as the price of readmission : 
Rome prescribed milder terms. Yet in Carthage, 
one Novatus separated from the Church when he 
was unable to obtain less harsh terms: in Rome, 
a man of strangely similar name, Novatian, headed 
a party which enforced greater rigour. Stranger 
still, Novatus crossed the sea to aid Novatian in 
designs at Rome, which must have been directly 
opposed to his own at Carthage. 

Novatism at Carthage is soon forgotten — 
Novatianism at Rome ripens into a confirmed 
schism. It is when this has lost its vigour, and 
Novatianist stragglers begin to return to the 
Church, that a further question arises. How are 
these schismatics, now more than penitent waverers, 
to be readmitted ? Rome and Carthage are again 
at issue. Cyprian decided, that though schismatical 
baptism was null, a lapse into heresy or schism 
did not render void an orthodox baptism pre- 
viously received ; but that in this case the only 
further ceremony needed to restore a penitent to 
full Church privileges was imposition of hands. 
Pope Stephen of Rome held the doctrine which, 
confirmed by the Council of Aries in 314, is still 
held by the Church — that baptism was good by 
whomsoever administered, and therefore that in 
any case imposition of hands alone was needed. 
But Stephen went unwarrantable lengths in his 
efforts to enforce his doctrine. He denounced 
Cyprian as a false Christ, refused hospitality to 
his messengers, and broke off communion with 
the Church of Carthage. On this Firmilian, 



51 

Bishop of Caesarea, and the spokesman of the 
Churches of Asia Minor, (which themselves had 
been excommunicated by Stephen for a difference 
on the same question,) wrote to Cyprian a letter 9 , 
condemning Stephen in the strongest terms for 
his audacity in arrogating to himself the sole right 
of dictation on the practice of Christendom. 
The storm which Stephen had raised from all the 
Churches was violent indeed ; and the dissension 
of the third century might have anticipated by 
eight hundred years the rupture between the East 
and West, had not the question been fortunately 
solved by Stephen's death in 257. 

The strife between Rome and Carthage was 
again drowned in blood under Valerian, in a 
persecution which joined Cyprian and Xystus, 
Stephen's successor, in the same glorious martyr- 
dom (A.D. 258). 

But now the final ordeal of the Church was 
drawing near. Paganism, which had only inertly 
and intermittently opposed her before, was now 
fully awakened to its own impending dissolution. 
Christianity numbered its tens of thousands even 
in the capital city, and threatened to outnumber 
the heathen through all the cities of the empire. 
It had grown to these alarming proportions, while 
Paganism had been dallying philosophically with 
all religious interests : now the authorities felt 
that their own indifference had fostered it. They 
saw that there could be no firm standing-point 

q " Firmiliani Epistola ad S. Cyprianum," in BoutJis " Script. 
Eccl. Opuscula," (vol. i. p. 217.) 



52 

between the many gods of old Rome and the One 
God of the Christians ; and they hated the latter, 
more than they despised the former alternative. 
And while terror threw them back upon their old 
gods, reviving superstition represented the saving 
might of these deserted, but still kind divinities, 
in the bright colours of hope. War to the knife, 
the extirpation of all the Christians, was now the 
only hope of saving the glory of Rome, which 
must fall with the fall of her gods. 

The persecution in which Galerius, Diocletian, 
and Maximin were chief actors, raged through the 
whole empire alike for two years, in the East alone 
for eight more (A.D. 303 — 313). It was the last 
and deadliest struggle of Polytheism against purity. 
The dim conviction that it would be the last, 
whichever way it resulted — the virulence of the 
religion of old Rome, now that it was once more 
in possession of the civil arm to wreak its venge- 
ance — and even the reluctance of Diocletian to 
take extreme measures until forced into them by 
the malignity of his colleague Galerius — all con- 
tributed to make this the most searching trial 
through which the Church ever had to pass. 
Fortunately, trials of the same kind, though 
inferior in degree, had lately nerved her to bear 
this her last and severest : Decius had found 
many, Diocletian found few, to compromise their 
faith. Neither age, sex, nor condition exempted 
a Christian from agony and death. The leaded 
scourges 1 , knotted clubs 8 , teeth for tearing the 
r " plumbatse." s " scorpiones." 



53 

flesh 4 , and all the other tortures which malignity 
could devise, were invented to add to their agony ; 
and when death relieved them, no decent burial 
was allowed them, but their bones were thrown to 
the wild beasts, or cast into the Tiber. One 
martyr alone u — probably an unmarked and un- 
distinguished man — was happy enough to be 
buried in the tomb of his family, with a record 
which preserves to this day the fact and date of 
his martyrdom. 

But at length the fiery trial came to an end ; 
Diocletian had abdicated, both Galerius and Maxi- 
min had died in remorse and torture, and Con- 
stantine and Licinius were left alone at the head 
of the Roman world. The edict of Milan restored 
Christians to their civil and religious rights ; and 
upon the death of Licinius nine years afterwards, 
Christianity became established as the religion of 
the state. At once the Church issued from her 
temporary depression to enter upon a far wider 
sphere of power than she had possessed before. 
Her dark days were over, and centuries of autho- 
rity and magnificence were now before her. Would 
that her faith, which up to this time had been 
refined again and again by affliction, had been 



' " ungulse." 

u Lannus is the only martyr who, according to Maitland, 
has sufficient authentic record of his having suffered under 
this persecution. His epitaph runs as follows : " Lannus, 
Xti martir hie requiescit sub Dioclitiano passus. e. p. s." 
fet posteris suis]. (Maitland, p. 130.) 



54 

more proof to the corrupting influences of power 
and irresponsibility. 

Thus we have found the attempt to trace the 
progress and growth of Christianity, through her 
days of depression to the opening of her career of 
power, to consist mainly of a record of her strug- 
gles with three great foes. Of these, we have 
seen Judaism, perhaps the most bitter of all while 
its power lasted, yield the first; — Orientalism ex- 
haust its main strength in the second century, yet 
still preserve an influence at least on the mode 
of thought in the third ;— and Paganism retain its 
attitude of alternate hostility and indifference, till 
it gathers all its strength for the final struggle at 
the end of the third century. 

It would be more difficult, though perhaps more 
practically useful, to gauge the amount and cha- 
racter of the influences which each of the three 
permanently left on the Roman Church ; for any 
permanent impression on this is sure to have 
affected in some degree the whole of the Chris- 
tianity of Western Europe, and to be felt in its 
consequences even at the present day. 

(i.) After the dispersion of the Jews as a body, 
we have seen Judaic principles gradually lose their 
hold upon the Roman Church. But though the 
distinctive Judaic tenets were sunk thus early, still 
to the presence of such a formalizing element may 
perhaps be attributable the spirit of legality, which 
is more and more distinctly traceable in the 
Roman Church as it hardens into a systematic 



55 

organization, and becomes encrusted with doctrines 
of late growth and cumbrous rules of discipline. 
Still the spirit of Christian liberty, which is 
inherent in the Gospel system as explained by 
St. Paul, was not extinct within her ; an open 
rupture was always inevitable, but was delayed 
till the Teutonic kingdoms at last threw off the 
yoke in the Reformation, and proclaimed their 
independence of the grievous burdens which the 
Church of Rome had laid upon their shoulders. 

(ii.) Her struggle with Orientalism left its stamp 
both upon the doctrine and upon the discipline of 
the Roman Church ; but with different effects 
upon each, Any cause which made Christians 
think out and define the doctrines which had only 
been contained by implication in the early Creeds, 
must have done invaluable good to the Church, 
though at the cost of heresies without number. 
But it is certain that the tendency to asceticism 
and celibacy, which formed the chief characteristic 
of the discipline of the mediaeval Church, had its 
origin in the devout tone and lofty aspirations of 
the Phrygian heretics. This, whatever incidental 
good it may have done by preserving the religious 
tone of Europe through the dark ages, cannot 
now but be regarded as an unmixed evil ; at least 
by those who have protested against the corrupt- 
ing influences of the Roman monasticism, which 
is but the systematized form of this tendency. 

(iii.) Paganism, with which the Church main- 
tained her struggle the longest, had the greatest 
effects both for evil and for good upon her 



56 

character. The good effects are to be sought in 
the patient constancy, the enduring abnegation 
of self, with which she went through the ordeal 
of suffering. With a few exceptions — all jealously 
noted, yet surely very few in comparison with the 
many instances of heroic endurance — her sons did 
not shrink from the danger, nor think it strange 
concerning the fiery trial which was to try them. 
Surely some supernatural strength must have been 
vouchsafed to those who had entered upon the 
martyr-conflict, to bear them through to the last. 
But the evil effects were to come when Christianity 
had apparently gained her triumph over Paganism. 
Perhaps it was unavoidable that the principle of 
the defeated superstition should to some extent 
mingle with the conquering faith ; anyhow it is 
hardly to be doubted that invocation of saints, 
worshipping of martyrs, and most of the other 
glosses with which Rome has since overlaid the 
true faith, are but relics of the religion of the 
heathen world. May it prove more and more 
true— as it has to a great extent proved true 
already — that the Protestant Church, in giving up 
these spoils of Paganism, has not forfeited an inch 
of the spirit of true endurance and constancy, with 
which the Romans went through the furnace of 
affliction in the three first Christian centuries. 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 085 790 7 * 






1 












ms. 









v« 






->:■ 3> 



*<m 



■ 






! 



